Performance Evaluation of Four Qualitative RT-PCR Assays for the Detection of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2).

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), emerged in late 2019, and its rapid spread around the globe led the World Health Organization to declare it a pandemic. Laboratory diagnostics provide important information to help control virus transmission, and molecular nucleic acid amplification tests have been recognized as the gold standard for the direct detection of viral genetic material. The main aim of this study was to independently evaluate the analytical performance of four molecular assays that were designed for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 on open testing platforms under emergency use approval, namely, the COVIWOK COVID-19 RT-PCR Meril COVID-19 One-step RT-PCR Kit, the AmoyDx Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Detection Kit, the Meril COVID-19 One-step RT-PCR Kit and the NeoPlex COVID-19 Detection Kit, as alternatives to the current standard of care (SOC) assays in-country. All of the evaluated assays showed an acceptable performance, with a specificity of 100% and a sensitivity of 93.8% to 98.4%, compared to a SOC assay, with a Cohen's kappa coefficient of ≥0.9 (95% CI). In addition, the assays detected the AccuPlex reference material at 100 copies/mL, suggesting a good limit of detection. These assays provide suitable alternatives to the SOC assays that are currently available in-country, and these alternatives are acceptable for diagnostic use in South Africa. IMPORTANCE Laboratory diagnosis plays an important role in curbing the transmission of infection and reducing harmful delays in clinical and public health responses. Alternatives to the current standard of care assays for SARS-CoV-2 are important in order to overcome the challenges that are associated with global demands and supply shortages. Four molecular assays for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 that were designed for open testing platforms were evaluated in this study under emergency use approval. These assays had acceptable performance and provide suitable alternatives to the current standard of care assays that are available in-country. Their compatibilities with existing in-country amplification platforms make these assays convenient to use for diagnostic testing, both locally and globally These assays were recommended to the South African Health Products Regulatory Authority (SAHPRA) for patient care in South Africa.

Rapid Evaluation of the Xpert® Xpress CoV-2 plus and Xpert® Xpress CoV-2/Flu/RSV plus Tests.

The Xpert® Xpress SARS-CoV-2 and Xpert® Xpress SARS-CoV-2/Flu/RSV tests were rapidly developed and widely used during the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic. In response to emerging genetic variability, a new SARS-CoV-2 target (RNA-dependent RNA-polymerase) has been added to both tests: Xpert® Xpress CoV-2 plus and Xpert® Xpress CoV-2/Flu/RSV plus test. A rapid evaluation of both tests was performed in South Africa, using residual respiratory specimens. Residual respiratory specimens (n = 125) were used to evaluate the Xpert® Xpress CoV-2 plus test and included 50 genotyped specimens. The Xpert® Xpress CoV-2/Flu/RSV plus test was assessed using 45 genotyped SARS-CoV-2 specimens, 10 influenza A, 10 influenza B and 20 respiratory syncytial virus specimens. Results were compared to in-country standard-of-care tests. Genotyped specimens tested the performance of the test under pressure from circulating SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern. Reference material was included to assess the test limits and linearity. The Xpert® Xpress CoV-2 plus test performance compared to reference results across residual respiratory specimens was good (positive percentage agreement (PPA) = 95.2%, negative percentage agreement (NPA) = 95.0%) The Xpert® Xpress CoV-2/Flu/RSV plus test showed good performance across all residual respiratory specimens (PPA = 100%, NPA = 98.3%). All genotyped variants of concern were detected by both tests. The Xpert® Xpress CoV-2 plus and Xpert® Xpress CoV-2/Flu/RSV plus tests can be used to diagnose SARS-CoV-2, and to diagnose and differentiate SARS-CoV-2, influenza A, influenza B and respiratory syncytial virus, respectively. The NPA was lower than the recommended 99%, but was influenced by the low number of negative specimens tested. The variants of concern assessed did not affect test performance. It is recommended that sites perform their own assessments compared to in-country standard-of-care tests.

Clinical severity of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.4 and BA.5 lineages compared to BA.1 and Delta in South Africa.

Omicron lineages BA.4 and BA.5 drove a fifth wave of COVID-19 cases in South Africa. Here, we use the presence/absence of the S-gene target as a proxy for SARS-CoV-2 variant/lineage for infections diagnosed using the TaqPath PCR assay between 1 October 2021 and 26 April 2022. We link national COVID-19 individual-level data including case, laboratory test and hospitalisation data. We assess severity using multivariable logistic regression comparing the risk of hospitalisation and risk of severe disease, once hospitalised, for Delta, BA.1, BA.2 and BA.4/BA.5 infections. After controlling for factors associated with hospitalisation and severe outcome respectively, BA.4/BA.5-infected individuals had a similar odds of hospitalisation (aOR 1.24, 95% CI 0.98-1.55) and severe outcome (aOR 0.72, 95% CI 0.41-1.26) compared to BA.1-infected individuals. Newly emerged Omicron lineages BA.4/BA.5 showed similar severity to the BA.1 lineage and continued to show reduced clinical severity compared to the Delta variant.

Evaluation Protocol for SARS-CoV-2 Serological Assays.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has been identified as the causative agent of COVID-19. Accurate detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection is not only important for management of infected individuals but also to break the chain of transmission. Although the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) is the gold standard for diagnosis of acute SARS-CoV-2 infection, there are a number of limitations of these assays, which include the inability to detect past infection and decline in sensitivity 14 days post-symptom onset. There are several serology tests developed for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies including high-throughput serology platforms and lateral flow immunoassays. These tests should be evaluated for their performance to meet local regulations acceptance criteria. To optimize the diagnostic algorithm for SARS-CoV-2, this protocol describes the evaluation of serological antibody testing using various automated serology platforms and lateral flow immunoassays. This protocol was evaluated in both serum and plasma samples. The sample preparation, procedure, and data analysis are described. The protocol can be adapted for any serological testing.

Guidance for SARS-CoV-2 RNA-Based Molecular Assay Analytical Performance Evaluations.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection is frequently diagnosed through detection of viral RNA using nucleic acid amplification testing (NAAT) assays that are usually used in centralized settings. Following the publication of the SARS-CoV-2 genetic sequence, multiple diagnostic assays were launched in 2020. These assays require evaluation beyond manufacturer self-reported performance to determine whether they are suitable for use, meet country acceptance criteria, and are compatible with existing in-country platforms. In order to meet the demand for testing services, rapid yet robust assay performance evaluations are required. In our setting, these evaluation protocols required the use of residual patient specimens and reference materials, as typical clinical trials are time-consuming and limited by cost and the cyclical nature of SARS-CoV-2 infection. This protocol is designed to assist in the rapid and robust evaluation of nucleic acid-based assays for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 using limited specimens, reference materials, and test kits. While it is specific for RNA-based assays, it can be adapted for fully automated analyses. The preparation and processing of evaluation panels is described, followed by methods for analytical precision analysis and data visualization. Assay robustness and scalability are briefly discussed as these can be critical for implementation. This protocol is designed to be flexible and alternative options are provided throughout the text where possible.

Emergence of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron lineages BA.4 and BA.5 in South Africa.

Three lineages (BA.1, BA.2 and BA.3) of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Omicron variant of concern predominantly drove South Africa's fourth Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) wave. We have now identified two new lineages, BA.4 and BA.5, responsible for a fifth wave of infections. The spike proteins of BA.4 and BA.5 are identical, and similar to BA.2 except for the addition of 69-70 deletion (present in the Alpha variant and the BA.1 lineage), L452R (present in the Delta variant), F486V and the wild-type amino acid at Q493. The two lineages differ only outside of the spike region. The 69-70 deletion in spike allows these lineages to be identified by the proxy marker of S-gene target failure, on the background of variants not possessing this feature. BA.4 and BA.5 have rapidly replaced BA.2, reaching more than 50% of sequenced cases in South Africa by the first week of April 2022. Using a multinomial logistic regression model, we estimated growth advantages for BA.4 and BA.5 of 0.08 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.08-0.09) and 0.10 (95% CI: 0.09-0.11) per day, respectively, over BA.2 in South Africa. The continued discovery of genetically diverse Omicron lineages points to the hypothesis that a discrete reservoir, such as human chronic infections and/or animal hosts, is potentially contributing to further evolution and dispersal of the virus.

Performance of the Abbott SARS-CoV-2 IgG serological assay in South African 2 patients.

In late December 2019, pneumonia cases of unknown origin were reported in Wuhan, China. This virus was named SARS-CoV2 and the clinical syndrome was named coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19). South Africa, despite strict and early lockdown has the highest infection rate in Africa. A key component of South Africa's response to SARSCoV2 was the rapid scale-up of diagnostic testing. The Abbott SARS-CoV2 assay detects IgG antibodies against the Nucleocapsid (N) protein of the SARS-CoV2 virus. This study undertook to validate and evaluate performance criteria of the Abbott assay and to establish whether this assay would show clinical utility in our population. Positive patients (n = 391) and negative controls (n = 139) were included. The Architect-i and Alinity-i systems were analyzers that were used to perform the SARS-CoV-2 IgG assay. In-house ELISA was incorporated into the study as a confirmatory serology test. A total of number of 530 participants was tested, 87% were symptomatic with infection and 13% were asymptomatic. When compared to RT-qPCR, the sensitivity of Architect and Alinity SARS-CoV2 assays was 69.5% and 64.8%, respectively. Specificity for Architect and Alinity assays was 95% and 90.3%, respectively. The Abbott assay was also compared to in house ELISA assay, with sensitivity for the Architect and Alinity assays of 94.7% and 92.5%, respectively. Specificity for Abbott Alinity assays was 91.7% higher than Abbott Architect 88.1%. Based on the current findings testing of IgG after 14 days is recommended in South Africa and supports other studies performed around the world.

Antigen-Based Point of Care Testing (POCT) for Diagnosing SARS-CoV-2: Assessing Performance.

Currently, the most accurate way to diagnose an active SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) infection is through detection of viral RNA using reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test. While RT-PCR tests are the most sensitive for identifying infection, there are significant limitations, such as global access to sufficient test kits, turnaround times (TAT) from specimen collection to test result is often greater than 24 h and the need for skilled operators in accredited laboratories requiring specialized equipment. A rapid test performed at the point of care (POC) could provide a result within an approximate time of 30 min post specimen collection, be performed by a health care worker and comprise a simple workflow, improving both turnaround time and potentially decreasing costs (e.g., transport, cold-chain, skilled laboratory staff, complex equipment). Determining the performance of SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR tests is, however, easier to assess than antigen-based POCT, as residual clinical specimens (swabs in universal transport media [UTM]) are readily available in laboratory environments, and do not require patient informed consent. Evaluating the performance of POCT requires informed-consent driven studies, with patients required to provide a standard of care specimen as well as study evaluation specimens, which is often not acceptable as nasopharyngeal swabbing can be invasive, clinical field trials are costly and time consuming. Many institutions and regulatory bodies also require preliminary data prior to use in field settings. Therefore, we have developed a method to determine the performance of antigen based POCT that can be used by implementers in national healthcare programs, regulators and rapid test developers. The method investigates both quantitative and qualitative parameters, with the latter providing insights into the capability for implementation and national program uptake.

Monitored Implementation of COVID-19 Rapid Antigen Screening at Taxi Ranks in Johannesburg, South Africa.

Digital tools can support community-based decentralized testing initiatives to broaden access to COVID-19 diagnosis, especially in high-transmission settings. This operational study investigated the use of antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) for COVID-19 combined with an end-to-end digital health solution, in three taxi ranks in Johannesburg, South Africa. Members of the public were eligible if they were aged ≥18 years, could read, and had a cellphone. Over 15,000 participants, enrolled between June and September 2021, were screened for COVID-19 risk factors. A digital risk questionnaire identified 2061 (13%) participants as moderate risk and 2987 (19%) as high risk, based on symptoms and/or recent exposure to a known case. Of this group referred for testing, 3997 (79%) received Ag-RDTs, with positivity rates of 5.1% in the "high-risk" group and 0.8% in the "moderate-risk" group. A subset of 569 randomly selected participants received additional PCR testing. Sensitivity of the Ag-RDT in this setting was 40% (95% CI: 30.3%, 50.3%); most false negatives had high cycle threshold values (>25), hence low viral loads. Over 80% of participants who tested positive completed a 2-week phone-based follow-up questionnaire. Overall, the digital tool combined with Ag-RDTs enhanced community-based decentralized COVID-19 testing service delivery, reporting and follow-up.

Early assessment of the clinical severity of the SARS-CoV-2 omicron variant in South Africa: a data linkage study.

BACKGROUND: The SARS-CoV-2 omicron variant of concern was identified in South Africa in November, 2021, and was associated with an increase in COVID-19 cases. We aimed to assess the clinical severity of infections with the omicron variant using S gene target failure (SGTF) on the Thermo Fisher Scientific TaqPath COVID-19 PCR test as a proxy. METHODS: We did data linkages for national, South African COVID-19 case data, SARS-CoV-2 laboratory test data, SARS-CoV-2 genome data, and COVID-19 hospital admissions data. For individuals diagnosed with COVID-19 via TaqPath PCR tests, infections were designated as either SGTF or non-SGTF. The delta variant was identified by genome sequencing. Using multivariable logistic regression models, we assessed disease severity and hospitalisations by comparing individuals with SGTF versus non-SGTF infections diagnosed between Oct 1 and Nov 30, 2021, and we further assessed disease severity by comparing SGTF-infected individuals diagnosed between Oct 1 and Nov 30, 2021, with delta variant-infected individuals diagnosed between April 1 and Nov 9, 2021. FINDINGS: From Oct 1 (week 39), 2021, to Dec 6 (week 49), 2021, 161 328 cases of COVID-19 were reported in South Africa. 38 282 people were diagnosed via TaqPath PCR tests and 29 721 SGTF infections and 1412 non-SGTF infections were identified. The proportion of SGTF infections increased from two (3·2%) of 63 in week 39 to 21 978 (97·9%) of 22 455 in week 48. After controlling for factors associated with hospitalisation, individuals with SGTF infections had significantly lower odds of admission than did those with non-SGTF infections (256 [2·4%] of 10 547 vs 121 [12·8%] of 948; adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0·2, 95% CI 0·1-0·3). After controlling for factors associated with disease severity, the odds of severe disease were similar between hospitalised individuals with SGTF versus non-SGTF infections (42 [21%] of 204 vs 45 [40%] of 113; aOR 0·7, 95% CI 0·3-1·4). Compared with individuals with earlier delta variant infections, SGTF-infected individuals had a significantly lower odds of severe disease (496 [62·5%] of 793 vs 57 [23·4%] of 244; aOR 0·3, 95% CI 0·2-0·5), after controlling for factors associated with disease severity. INTERPRETATION: Our early analyses suggest a significantly reduced odds of hospitalisation among individuals with SGTF versus non-SGTF infections diagnosed during the same time period. SGTF-infected individuals had a significantly reduced odds of severe disease compared with individuals infected earlier with the delta variant. Some of this reduced severity is probably a result of previous immunity. FUNDING: The South African Medical Research Council, the South African National Department of Health, US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the African Society of Laboratory Medicine, Africa Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Wellcome Trust, and the Fleming Fund.

Operational characteristics of 30 lateral flow immunoassays used to identify COVID-19 immune response.

Serology or antibody tests for COVID-19 are designed to detect antibodies (mainly Immunoglobulin M (IgM) and Immunoglobulin G (IgG) produced in response to Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS CoV-2) infection. In this study, 30 lateral flow immunoassays were tested using serum or plasma from patients with confirmed SARS CoV-2 infection. Negative serological controls were accessed from a well-characterised bank of sera which were stored prior to February 2020. Operational characteristics and ease of use of the assays are reported. 4/30 (13%) of kits (Zheihang Orient Gene COVID-19 IgG/IgM, Genrui Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) IgG/IgM, Biosynex COVID-19 BSS IgG/IgM, Boson Biotech 2019-nCoV IgG/IgM) were recommended for SAHPRA approval based on kit sensitivity. Of these, only the Orientgene was recommended by SAHPRA in August 2020 for use within the approved national testing algorithm while the remaining three received limited authorization for evaluation. All kits evaluated work on the same basic principle of immunochromatography with minor differences noted in the shape and colour of cartridges, the amount of specimen volume required and the test duration. Performance of the lateral flow tests were similar to sensitivities and specificities reported in other studies. The cassettes of the majority of kits evaluated (90%) detected both IgG and IgM. Only 23% of kits evaluated contained all consumables required for point-of-care testing. The study highlights the need for thorough investigation of kits prior to implementation.

Performance of the EUROIMMUN Anti-SARS-CoV-2 ELISA Assay for detection of IgA and IgG antibodies in South Africa.

Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome-Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has been identified as the causative agent for causing the clinical syndrome of COVID -19. Accurate detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection is not only important for management of infected individuals but also to break the chain of transmission. South Africa is the current epicenter of SARS-CoV-2 infection in Africa. To optimize the diagnostic algorithm for SARS-CoV-2 in the South African setting, the study aims to evaluate the diagnostic performance of the EUROIMMUN Anti-SARS-CoV-2 assays. This study reported the performance of EUROIMMUN enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) for semi-quantitative detection of IgA and IgG antibodies in serum and plasma samples targeting the recombinant S1 domain of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein as antigen. Samples were collected from 391 individuals who had tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 and 139 SARS CoV-2 negative controls. Samples were stratified by number of days' post-PCR diagnosis and symptoms. The sensitivity of EUROIMMUN IgG was 64.1% (95% CI: 59.1-69.0%) and 74.3% (95% CI: 69.6-78.6%) for IgA and the specificity was lower for IgA [84.2% (95% CI: 77-89.2%)] than IgG [95.2% (95% CI: 90.8-98.4%)]. The EUROIMMUN Anti-SARS-CoV-2 ELISA Assay sensitivity was higher for IgA but low for IgG and improved for both assays in symptomatic individuals and at later timepoints post PCR diagnosis.

Preparing for the next pandemic: Lessons from rapid scale-up of SARS-CoV-2 testing in a South African high-throughput automated HIV molecular laboratory.

Africa's readiness to respond to the SARS-COV-2 pandemic was tested due to reliance on rapid turn-around-time of polymerase chain reaction results for clinical management, isolation and quarantine decisions. The NHLS HIV Molecular Laboratory in Johannesburg, South Africa, is one of the largest automated HIV molecular laboratories worldwide. Despite its extensive molecular capacity and experience in managing high volumes acquired from a large HIV program, significant challenges were encountered during its rapid transition to large scale SARS-CoV-2 testing. We describe the strategies employed to manage these challenges that resulted in a 30% improvement in SARS-CoV-2 test turn-around-time during the first wave peak during which approximately 25000 samples were tested per month, and further improvement during the second wave peak, with 81% within targeted turn-around-time.

Self-Sampling for SARS-CoV-2 Diagnostic Testing by Using Nasal and Saliva Specimens: Protocol for Usability and Clinical Evaluation.

BACKGROUND: SARS-CoV-2 is a novel coronavirus discovered in December 2019 and is currently the cause of the global COVID-19 pandemic. A critical aspect of fighting this pandemic is to obtain accurate and timely test results so that patients who have tested positive for COVID-19 can be identified and isolated to reduce the spread of the virus. Research has shown that saliva is a promising candidate for SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics because its collection is minimally invasive and can be reliably self-administered. However, little research has been conducted on saliva testing and SARS-CoV-2 self-sampling (SARS-CoV-2SS) in Sub-Saharan Africa. OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of this study is to comparatively evaluate the clinical sensitivity and specificity of nasal and oral samples self-collected by individuals for SARS-CoV-2 testing against a reference method involving sample collection and testing by a health care professional. The secondary objectives of this study are to evaluate the usability of nasal self-sampling and saliva self-sampling as a sample collection method for SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic testing by using failure mode and error assessment. METHODS: Participants will be recruited from the general population by using various methods, Participants will be screened progressively as they present at the clinical trial sites as well as in primary health care catchment areas in the inner city of Johannesburg, South Africa. In the event that recruitment numbers are low, we will use a mobile van to recruit participants from outlying areas of Johannesburg. We aim to enroll 250 participants into this study in approximately 6 weeks. Two sample types-a self-administered nasal swab and a self-administered saliva sample-will be collected from each participant, and a health care professional will collect a third sample by using a nasopharyngeal swab (ie, the standard reference method). RESULTS: This protocol has been approved by the University of the Witwatersrand Human Research Ethics Committee on July 31, 2020 (Protocol number EzCov003). As of May 13, 2021, 120 participants have been enrolled into the study. CONCLUSIONS: SARS-CoV-2SS may offer many benefits to individuals, by allowing for initial self-identification of symptoms and collection of samples without involving third parties and potential risk of infection provided the sample can be safely processed via a collection system. The results of this study will provide preliminary data on the acceptability, feasibility, and usability of SARS-CoV-2SS among the general population for its future implementation. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/24811.

SARS-CoV-2 Antigens Expressed in Plants Detect Antibody Responses in COVID-19 Patients.

Background: The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic has swept the world and poses a significant global threat to lives and livelihoods, with 115 million confirmed cases and at least 2.5 million deaths from Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the first year of the pandemic. Developing tools to measure seroprevalence and understand protective immunity to SARS-CoV-2 is a priority. We aimed to develop a serological assay using plant-derived recombinant viral proteins, which represent important tools in less-resourced settings. Methods: We established an indirect ELISA using the S1 and receptor-binding domain (RBD) portions of the spike protein from SARS-CoV-2, expressed in Nicotiana benthamiana. We measured antibody responses in sera from South African patients (n = 77) who had tested positive by PCR for SARS-CoV-2. Samples were taken a median of 6 weeks after the diagnosis, and the majority of participants had mild and moderate COVID-19 disease. In addition, we tested the reactivity of pre-pandemic plasma (n = 58) and compared the performance of our in-house ELISA with a commercial assay. We also determined whether our assay could detect SARS-CoV-2-specific IgG and IgA in saliva. Results: We demonstrate that SARS-CoV-2-specific immunoglobulins are readily detectable using recombinant plant-derived viral proteins, in patients who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 by PCR. Reactivity to S1 and RBD was detected in 51 (66%) and 48 (62%) of participants, respectively. Notably, we detected 100% of samples identified as having S1-specific antibodies by a validated, high sensitivity commercial ELISA, and optical density (OD) values were strongly and significantly correlated between the two assays. For the pre-pandemic plasma, 1/58 (1.7%) of samples were positive, indicating a high specificity for SARS-CoV-2 in our ELISA. SARS-CoV-2-specific IgG correlated significantly with IgA and IgM responses. Endpoint titers of S1- and RBD-specific immunoglobulins ranged from 1:50 to 1:3,200. S1-specific IgG and IgA were found in saliva samples from convalescent volunteers. Conclusion: We demonstrate that recombinant SARS-CoV-2 proteins produced in plants enable robust detection of SARS-CoV-2 humoral responses. This assay can be used for seroepidemiological studies and to measure the strength and durability of antibody responses to SARS-CoV-2 in infected patients in our setting.

The Development of a Standardized Quality Assessment Material to Support Xpert® HIV-1 Viral Load Testing for ART Monitoring in South Africa.

The tiered laboratory framework for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) viral load monitoring accommodates a range of HIV viral load testing platforms, with quality assessment critical to ensure quality patient testing. HIV plasma viral load testing is challenged by the instability of viral RNA. An approach using an RNA stabilizing buffer is described for the Xpert® HIV-1 Viral Load (Cepheid) assay and was tested in remote laboratories in South Africa. Plasma panels with known HIV viral titres were prepared in PrimeStore molecular transport medium for per-module verification and per-instrument external quality assessment. The panels were transported at ambient temperatures to 13 testing laboratories during 2017 and 2018, tested according to standard procedures and uploaded to a web portal for analysis. A total of 275 quality assessment specimens (57 verification panels and two EQA cycles) were tested. All participating laboratories met study verification criteria (n = 171 specimens) with an overall concordance correlation coefficient (ρc) of 0.997 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.996 to 0.998) and a mean bias of -0.019 log copies per milliliter (cp/mL) (95% CI: -0.044 to 0.063). The overall EQA ρc (n = 104 specimens) was 0.999 (95% CI: 0.998 to 0.999), with a mean bias of 0.03 log cp/mL (95% CI: 0.02 to 0.05). These panels are suitable for use in quality monitoring of Xpert® HIV-1 VL and are applicable to laboratories in remote settings.